Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 3/8] MIPS: Octeon: Add a global resource manager. | From | David Daney <> | Date | Fri, 1 Dec 2017 12:56:32 -0800 |
| |
On 12/01/2017 12:41 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: > David, > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 9:01 PM, David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> wrote: >> On 12/01/2017 11:49 AM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: >>> >>> David, Greg, >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:42 PM, David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/30/2017 11:53 PM, Philippe Ombredanne wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/resource-mgr.c >>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,371 @@ >>>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >>>>>>> +/* >>>>>>> + * Resource manager for Octeon. >>>>>>> + * >>>>>>> + * This file is subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU >>>>>>> General >>>>>>> Public >>>>>>> + * License. See the file "COPYING" in the main directory of this >>>>>>> archive >>>>>>> + * for more details. >>>>>>> + * >>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2017 Cavium, Inc. >>>>>>> + */ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since you nicely included an SPDX id, you would not need the >>>>> boilerplate anymore. e.g. these can go alright? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> They may not be strictly speaking necessary, but I don't think they hurt >>>> anything. Unless there is a requirement to strip out the license text, >>>> we >>>> would stick with it as is. >>> >>> >>> I think the requirement is there and that would be much better for >>> everyone: keeping both is redundant and does not bring any value, does >>> it? Instead it kinda removes the benefits of having the SPDX id in the >>> first place IMHO. >>> >>> Furthermore, as there have been already ~12K+ files cleaned up and >>> still over 60K files to go, it would really nice if new files could >>> adopt the new style: this way we will not have to revisit and repatch >>> them in the future. >>> >> >> I am happy to follow any style Greg would suggest. There doesn't seem to be >> much documentation about how this should be done yet. > > Thomas (tglx) has already submitted a first series of doc patches a > few weeks ago. And AFAIK he might be working on posting the updates > soon, whenever his real time clock yields a few cycles away from real > time coding work ;) > > See also these discussions with Linus [1][2][3], Thomas[4] and Greg[5] > on this and mostly related topics > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/2/715 > [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/25/125 > [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/25/133 > [4] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/2/805 > [5] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/10/19/165 >
OK, you convinced me.
Thanks, David
| |